GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know Democrats are going to be wanting to get much more detail from you on how you’re going to pay for your tax cuts. We’ve heard that at the Democratic Convention. President Clinton said your math doesn’t work. I know you dispute what President Clinton said and what the Democrats that say that you’re going to have a $2,000 tax hike on middleclass families. I know you dispute that. You cite your own studies. But one of the studies you cite by Martin Feldstein at Harvard shows that to make your math work, it could work, if you eliminate the home mortgage, charity, and state and local tax deductions for everyone earning over $100,000. Is that what you propose?

MITT ROMNEY: No, that’s not what I propose. And, of course, part of my plan is to stimulate economic growth. The biggest source of getting the country to a balanced budget is not by raising taxes or by cutting spending. It’s by encouraging the growth of the economy. So my tax plan is to encourage investment in growth in America, more jobs, that means more people paying taxes. So that’s a big component of what allows us to get to a balanced budget.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But his study, which you’ve cited, says it can only work if you take away those deductions for everyone earning more than $100,000.

MITT ROMNEY: Well, it doesn’t necessarily show the same growth that we’re anticipating. And I haven’t seen his precise study. But I can tell you that we can lower our rates–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you cited the study, though.

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I said that there are five different studies that point out that we can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people. Let me tell you, George, the fundamentals of my tax policy are these. Number one, reduce tax burdens on middle-income people. So no one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That’s principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

Words mean different things to different people. The bottom line was Romney, who I don't like at all was was giving his definition of what middle class was on for an average American from a top down perspective.

Do you think there is a difference between "middle income" and "middle class"?

What I was attempting to do, before you intervened, was to pin down Shtstprayer/MadCrapper/Tom.Jay and give us an answer from his heart. A REAL answer.

Any time the words class, gender or race are involved, I get suspicious. Because those are artificial constructs invented by the Left to agitate.
Yes, if I look in the dictionary those words would have apolitical definitions, but thats not the way they are being used here.

I dunno. Like I said, I hate using the terms "middle class" or "working class" or upper class" but for the sake of making a point---

To the best of my understanding, the middle class was never representative of a large segment of the American population.

People have been under the impression that middle = average, like for example on a Bell Curve, this group would be at the top, but thats not the case, and never has been.

I think there are alot of people who think they are middle class, but as it's defined by (and we still haven't really determined this yet, have we?) the bean counters, they are not.

Because of this ignorance, agitators like Obama can manipulate voters by inferring the term in all the crap he says pertaining to fiscal and economic policy.

I think that is a very good take. For a socialist promoting an ideology it is a great way to promote yourself though. The only reason we think this way as a society is because of the excessive liquidity that has been in the system for some time now and the value of the dollar which as allowed bean counters to believe they are middle class because they actually have been artificially so for some time now if they lived within their means and invested correctly.

He didn't say $200-$250,000 is middle class. This is the same kind of thread title that liberals here complain conservatives use against Obama. Taking something out of context and tarding it up as if it's a huge deal.

He didn't say $200-$250,000 is middle class. This is the same kind of thread title that liberals here complain conservatives use against Obama. Taking something out of context and tarding it up as if it's a huge deal.

Well this is all the moonbats got at this point. Go through everything Romney says with a fine tooth comb and act all exacerbated and enraged about it and hope somehow it gets legs and it puts him on the defense and force him to do damage control.

I mean, they even take Obama's blunders and spin it around to somehow find an angle that makes Romney look bad. I'm sure the American public by and large can see it for what it is.

I dunno. Like I said, I hate using the terms "middle class" or "working class" or upper class" but for the sake of making a point---

To the best of my understanding, the middle class was never representative of a large segment of the American population.

People have been under the impression that middle = average, like for example on a Bell Curve, this group would be at the top, but thats not the case, and never has been.

I think there are alot of people who think they are middle class, but as it's defined by (and we still haven't really determined this yet, have we?) the bean counters, they are not.

Because of this ignorance, agitators like Obama can manipulate voters by inferring the term in all the crap he says pertaining to fiscal and economic policy.

Given the data set and the vernacular of central tendency, which measure would you prefer be used? Take that, with some sort of acceptable epsilon (or deviation), and everyone can have a legitimate conversation. If your terms aren't well-defined, arguments and "understandings" don't really mean much.

__________________
That rabbit is crazy; I'm Brian Waters!

Kotter: "You are lucky I'm truly not the vindictive or psycho type...I'd be careful from now on, and I'd just back the hell off if I were you....otherwise, the Mizzou "extension office" life might get exciting"

Given the data set and the vernacular of central tendency, which measure would you prefer be used? Take that, with some sort of acceptable epsilon (or deviation), and everyone can have a legitimate conversation. If your terms aren't well-defined, arguments and "understandings" don't really mean much.

True. For example, the term "social justice". It sounds good, "hey I'm for social justice, vote for me!"

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Middle Class is difficult to define because the cost of living isn't consistent from state to state or city to city.

$200k in Kansas or Mississippi or Alabama or West Virginia or Kentucky goes much, much further than it does in SoCal, NoCal, Denver, Seattle, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Boston, etc.

That said, once again, this is all about taxation. If either candidate came out and defined the Middle Class, we'd know where the tax cuts would begin. But, that's against their best interest at this point because they'd likely disenfranchise their supporters.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Middle Class is difficult to define because the cost of living isn't consistent from state to state or city to city.

$200k in Kansas or Mississippi or Alabama or West Virginia or Kentucky goes much, much further than it does in SoCal, NoCal, Denver, Seattle, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Boston, etc.

That said, once again, this is all about taxation. If either candidate came out and defined the Middle Class, we'd know where the tax cuts would begin. But, that's against their best interest at this point because they'd likely disenfranchise their supporters.

A cost of living index (and similar metrics) could help to normalize incomes.

__________________
That rabbit is crazy; I'm Brian Waters!

Kotter: "You are lucky I'm truly not the vindictive or psycho type...I'd be careful from now on, and I'd just back the hell off if I were you....otherwise, the Mizzou "extension office" life might get exciting"

True. For example, the term "social justice". It sounds good, "hey I'm for social justice, vote for me!"

Then you find out what it really is.

You must have missed my first question: Which measure of central tendency would you prefer to use?

__________________
That rabbit is crazy; I'm Brian Waters!

Kotter: "You are lucky I'm truly not the vindictive or psycho type...I'd be careful from now on, and I'd just back the hell off if I were you....otherwise, the Mizzou "extension office" life might get exciting"

A cost of living index (and similar metrics) could help to normalize incomes.

It could but then how do you tax "The Middle Class"? Any household over $50,001 to $250,00 are taxed identically? I find that to be unfair because those earning $250k a year are more likely to have write-offs than those earning $50k, so ultimately, they're paying less.